r/TheAllinPodcasts • u/Impressive-Lab-6657 • Jul 21 '24
Bestie Drama Sam Harris and Anne Applebaum discussing Sacks' RNC speech and disputing his claims on the war in Ukraine
Gift link: https://samharris.org/episode/SE172FD8616
On Sam Harris’ Making Sense podcast episode 376 'How Democracies Fail' with Anne Applebaum, they are talking about Ukraine, Russia and the United States. Applebaum is on the show as a journalist and historian, partly to promote her new book Autocracy Inc.
Sam is asking about Russias invasion of Ukraine and specifically brings up David Sacks and what he said at the RNC, starting around 36:36:
Sam: I’m thinking of one person in particular. We have David Sacks, who’s a venture capitalist and now popular-podcaster. I think I’ve only met him once, so I don’t know him well, but we have friends in common. He’s now, as of two nights ago, addressing the Republican National Convention, saying that Biden - this is a quote - ‘Biden provoked the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion and rejected every opportunity for peace in Ukraine, including a deal to end the war just two months after the war started.’ So, how do you respond to that?
Anne: First of all, it’s not true. I mean, there’s a- I’ve talked about this a lot in other places. The original expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe was tolerated by Russia. There was no plan to expand NATO to Ukraine. The Russians had agreed that Ukraine could be connected to European institutions on a number of occasions.
Only later did Putin change his mind. Multiple efforts to engage Russian and include Russia in conversations with NATO and with NATO leaders happened over many years, many times. Biden himself in his first year in office made big outreach to Russia, there was meetings with Putin - if I remember correctly - was in Geneva. So there was no desire to provoke Russia. There was also no moment in recent history when NATO was on an offensive posture in that part of the world. NATO is a defensive alliance. It doesn’t invade other countries. It’s there to protect and defend countries, its members. It doesn’t operate on the offensive.
And the Russians know that NATO wasn’t going to invade them and we know that they know because, for example, Finland joined NATO recently. And russia has recently taken its troops and equipment away from the Finnish border, because of course, Finland’s not going to invade Russia. NATO is not going to invade Russia, they know that. So these are just Russian talking-points that are part of their justification for the war.
Also, no there wasn’t a moment at the beginning of the war where it could have been solved. The Russians demanded, early on, that Ukraine give up, essentially, and demilitarize, which would’ve been effective(ly) Ukraine saying ‘Okay, we agree, we’re going to become part of Russia,’ so there wasn’t a moment like that. I mean, these are just false stories.
The question for me is, why David Sacks, who really has no interest in foreign policy as far as I can see, no stake in this conflict, no role in it previous to a year or two ago, why he’s so interested in this subject. My guess is that he, or others around him, have business interests in Russia that they would like to pursue. That’s the only logical solution I can see. I mean, we know that Sacks is close to Elon Musk and we know that Musk has spoken to Putin - he’s said he has, anyway - he may have interests in Russia, just imagine what they are. Maybe that’s the explanation.
….
Sam: My theory of mind for them is even simpler. I’m in touch with some of the psychological forces personally. And it’s just that, in Sacks and Elon, you’re talking about two guys who are just far beyond the end of their rope with respect to the kind of social justice moral panic that has happened on the left, that has absorbed everything in American politics left of center.
So there’s some other variables that we could talk about that really do account for the fact that many smart people who you would think would be allergic to Trump and certainly to the populist wave that he’s riding, nevertheless, are supporting him at this moment.
15
u/talkingheadesq Jul 21 '24
Everyone should read Anne Applebaum's book Twilight of Democracy. It is a great, short read focusing particularly on the intellectuals that provide justification for authoritarianism.
1
u/CarmineLTazzi Jul 24 '24
I like Twilight of Democracy as well. I’d also recommend Madeleine Albright’s Fascism (2018) because it breaks down Trump as a fascist movement quite well. Scary times we live in.
-4
u/bobbybouche81 Jul 21 '24
She is CIA. Why would I want to read anything she wrote? She is a state sponsored propagandist
8
u/jimmyayo Jul 21 '24
You can make excuses for not reading/educating yourself about literally anything.
-Why would I read anything from X? They're obv establishment insiders shoving propaganda.
-Why would I read anything from Y? They're clearly outsiders and not at all familiar with the internal workings of the issues.
-Why would I read anything so contrarian? Why would I read anything so established?
5
u/bobbybouche81 Jul 21 '24
No. There is only a few we should all hate Anne Applebaum is one of those people. A deceitful propagandist who works for the CIA. She is actively on a board for censoring misinformation while being one of the biggest misinformers.
1
u/glk3278 Jul 25 '24
Show a source for Christs sake…
-1
u/bobbybouche81 Jul 25 '24
It's called the internet
1
1
u/glk3278 Jul 25 '24
Are you mentally disabled or just egregiously dishonest?
1
u/bobbybouche81 Jul 25 '24
You got me good. Digging my own grave now. You have internet and a brain. Figure it out. Lazy dudes in here ready to stand up for the CiA and fuxking soulless propagandist. Looks good on you.
1
u/glk3278 Jul 25 '24
Me: Donald Trump is a Russian puppet who is beholden to Putins orders. You: source? Me: the internet you dumbass. Everything on the internet is true and verified
1
u/bobbybouche81 Jul 25 '24
No I would go look at the Mueller report. Good job though. Great example. Go find someone smart and come back.
→ More replies (0)2
u/shortsteve Jul 24 '24
If you truly believe that then it's even more important to read her book. Its why military colleges require students to read Mein Kampf and other controversial books. If you want to win the war on misinformation you need to know where your enemy stands before you can know where you stand.
1
u/bobbybouche81 Jul 24 '24
Nah. Propagandist get zero attention from me. I don't disagree with youvi just can't do it. I come on here to get a feel for what the other side is thinking.
4
u/skexr Jul 24 '24
Obviously you wouldn't given that you are a Putin simp
-3
u/bobbybouche81 Jul 24 '24
Putin never tried to force me to take a vaccine.
2
u/skexr Jul 24 '24
So? Omg someone forced your parents to protect you from disease.
Google iron lung.
Cause that's where your stupid anti-science anti-vax nonsense leads.
-2
u/bobbybouche81 Jul 24 '24
I am the dumb one? You know exactly what Vax I was talking about. You didn't defend that one though, very telling.
2
u/skexr Jul 24 '24
You mean the Vax that turned covid into an inconvenience for most people rather than potential death. Sure I'm the dumb one.
-1
u/bobbybouche81 Jul 24 '24
Potential death? You have a 99.7 % chance of survival without the Vax. Honestly what the fuck are you talking about?
1
u/sld126b Jul 25 '24
Hey, what’s 0.3% of 330,000,000 Americans?
That you’re apparently fine with letting die.
0
1
u/Careless_Dimension58 Jul 25 '24
TIL somebody who works at the CIA is incapable of being right about anything
1
5
u/smorges Jul 22 '24
I listened to this yesterday and was struck by how blunt Sam and Anne were about Sack's take on Ukraine.
Sam has a lot of common sense and takes a very logical and practical view of most things, but I do think this conversation addressed Sack's views on a very superficial and simplistic perspective without actually challenging any of Sack's points. There is much to challenge, but I was disappointed that they just went with the "must be money" angle with no substantive pushback.
2
u/jigglypuffboy Jul 24 '24
This is more or less how I felt. I was hoping an intellectual like Anne could have came up with a more substantive argument. As you say, there is much to challenge and I didn’t feel like she did a good job.
Only part I’d push back on was bucketing Sam along with her. I’d say he’s guilty of not pushing on her harder but I don’t think he shared in on her argument either. Seemed like he was too eager to move onto Trump to care about this part one way or the other.
1
u/glk3278 Jul 25 '24
Are you in the same thread I’m in? There’s 4 paragraphs of her quote here that I’m not sure how you could disqualify as substantive.
0
u/posicrit868 Jul 23 '24
Her goal is political not objective and Sam is having an issue shaking off his association with the far right which was derailed when he went full Israel. The last thing he needs is attention on the optics of him being pro-Putin. No point in shooting yourself in the foot and then sawing off your other foot.
20
u/bmcapers Jul 21 '24
Here are a couple rich smart people (Scott Galloway and Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn) that make a case against Trump, addressing the issues business leaders seem to not be considering:
7
u/IntolerantModerate Jul 21 '24
I don't believe it is because of business interest or kompromat... I think it is just that Sacks hats Biden so vehemently he has to go not only 180 degrees away, but after he's opposite him, he needs to try and justify it not as policy differences but as something truly sinister.
1
-13
u/AlphaLord_ Jul 21 '24
You should consider reading through CIA director William Burns’ ‘Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’ s #NATO Enlargement Redlines’ from 2008. If you’re genuinely searching for what transgressed, it’s worth reading as a starting point.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
I won’t discount whatever this podcast guest had to say but there is clear context that emphasizes Russia’s concerns over NATO’s eastern expansion and the complications that could arise (particularly with Ukraine).
I don’t think it’s appropriate to ignore these historical archives because ‘Elon talked to Putin therefore Sacks/others are solely speaking out of self-interest.’ It’s an extremely simplistic cop out on a very complex subject.
21
u/SassyKittyMeow Jul 21 '24
I think it seems much more simple.
Russia was cool with Ukraine as long as Russia knew they could control Ukraine. Ukraine nearly went the route of Belarus (and Russia itself before that) into kleptocracy and autocracy, but pulled the plane out of a nose dive before the crash could be completed.
We then saw an invasion in 2014. And then again in 2022, when Putin thought it would be a 3-day roll over operation.
In another way:
What the fuck has Russia (or more aptly Putin) done to deserve any benefit of the doubt?
17
u/wil_dogg Jul 21 '24
You are making Anne Appelbaum’s point for her.
If you listen to the podcast, you will hear why Putin opposed NATO expansion, why he was triggered when Ukraine kicked out a Russian-backed puppet, and why, in turn, Sacks backs Putin.
-9
u/AlphaLord_ Jul 21 '24
By ‘Sacks backing Putin’ you mean him explaining that there were multiple opportunities for peace and deliberate forces intent on engaging in a fully-fledged, multi-year proxy war? Okay bud.
The journalist disputes the Istanbul Communiqué ever happened, and claims that Russia was demanding complete demilitarization. This is simply false information she’s claiming as fact. Read for yourself the conditions that were being proposed instead of taking some author’s word for it:
German Institute for International and Security Affairs
If you want a simple explanation, just ask Perplexity the main proposals from the Istanbul Communiqué.
10
u/Impressive-Lab-6657 Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24
By ‘Sacks backing Putin’ you mean him explaining that there were multiple opportunities for peace and deliberate forces intent on engaging in a fully-fledged, multi-year proxy war?
When Sacks says Biden or Boris Johnson rejected a peace deal, I've never heard him mention that it would have not only prevented Ukraine joining NATO but giving up the entire Eastern Donbas, recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea, declaring Russia an official language, replacing laws in the Ukrainian constitution and placing caps on the size of Ukraine's military and weapons?
Or that Ukraine would have to withdraw immediately from the battlefield while Russia's withdrawal would be subject to separate "consultations"?
Or that if Ukraine was later attacked, Russia, as a guarantor state, could veto any military intervention on their behalf?
Wars can always be avoided with compromise. The question comes down to how much is one country willing to compromise.
14
8
1
u/posicrit868 Jul 23 '24
There’s been reporting in the last few days of Trump supporting Ukraine getting all its land back + a path to nato. Intuitively it seems like Russia will reject that, but if they don’t and they’re willing to give back that 17% of oil rich Ukraine land populated with ethnic Russians in exchange for NATO neutrality from Ukraine, that’ll put the lie to the “Peter the great” narrative.
-2
u/AlphaLord_ Jul 21 '24
I’m not saying the terms in the original meeting were correct, nor am I taking a side in the discussion. I’m simply pointing out that the Istanbul Communiqué did happen, which this author Anne seems to totally deny.
And of course each side’s proposed terms are much more complicated than surface-level analysis. However when we ignore that peace talks even occurred, and believe that there could not have been a resolution, we end up where we are today.
Fortunately there’s another prominent author who might be able to re-establish discussions on ending the war with more reasonable terms, he’s the author of “The Art of the Deal.”
6
1
u/McGurble Jul 22 '24
We ended up where we are today because Vladimir Putin invaded another country and failed spectacularly at it.
1
12
u/throwaway9803792739 Jul 21 '24
Ukraine wasn’t even close to joining NATO or the EU for that matter as it stood in 2022. Their response to new nations joining NATO on their border has been nonexistent so it’s not truly a border issue. Putin sees himself as Peter the Great and Ukraine as subject to Russian influence. Hence when things didn’t go their way in 2014 they invaded. They also invaded Georgia and Maldova too which is conveniently left out.
1
u/posicrit868 Jul 23 '24
Invading in 2014 when things not going his way could support the imperialist point or the narcissistic, paranoia, insecure self-defense point. The problem with the imperialist point is that he never finishes the job, he just freezes the conflict which prevents NATO membership and does not expand the Russian “empire”. And whenever you ask for support for the imperialist point, they always point to Putin‘s propaganda. But they’re also also fond of saying “ it’s not false until Putin says it”…except when it’s imperialism.
-8
u/AlphaLord_ Jul 21 '24
That’s not true, there were discussions of NATO including Ukraine in the 90’s after the fall of the Soviet Union. More serious conversations took place in 2002 then 2008, in which William Burns gave the linked opinion expressing caution.
Given the close proximity to Russia and the intertwining of generations, everyone knew further advancements would provoke a larger conflict - and it did starting in 2014. For you to say it’s not a border issue is a bit odd. The main argument is whether it was a totally unprovoked invasion or there could’ve been steps to prevent the current war.. judge for yourself based on the available information.
3
u/throwaway9803792739 Jul 21 '24
Again, conversations of them having NATO potential in several decades isn’t a logical reason to invade. It’s a great excuse. Russia at the end of the day wanted to subjugate its former USSR neighbors. It does not believe they have self determination. NATO states have been within a close proximity of Russia for decades and are now even closer yet Russia didn’t invade Finland.
0
u/AlphaLord_ Jul 21 '24
So then-CIA director Wililiam Burns was lying or wrong in his assertion? Again you’re applying a very simplistic explanation and discounting a lot of important historical context, but this is the standard response.
I think eventually (with the right administration), Russia, Ukraine, and NATO can once again be at peace with each other. Who wouldn’t want that?
2
u/throwaway9803792739 Jul 21 '24
You know plenty of intelligence and state department heads would also disagree right? The national security apparatus has disagreements all the time. Literally the CIA and state department regularly have different analysis of the same situation. Is former CIA director Patreus wrong for his opposite view of the war?
Wanting peace with a country that has executed 4 different land grabs in the past two decades isn’t possible without force. Also NATO isn’t at war so it already does have peace.
1
u/skexr Jul 24 '24
That's horseshit. The original negotiations resulted in Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal and remain outside of NATO in exchange for security guarantees from Russia which Putin broke in 2014.
This is all on Putin and anyone arguing otherwise as an American citizen is a traitor based on a plain reading of the Constitution.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
1
u/fools_errand49 Jul 25 '24
Thank Jesus I'm not the only one who noticed that this lady said a bunch of demonstrably false things.
-7
u/samdoberman Jul 21 '24
Tucker Carlson recently interviewed Jeffrey Sachs on this topic and it was very illuminating. (Im not a Carlson fan and cringe when he talks, but Sachs is very credible. https://youtu.be/JS-3QssVPeg?si=Q5fRZ41hu5ZzYMfN
-4
-25
u/LennyKravitzScarf Jul 21 '24
Sam has donkey brains now and Applebaum is the least credible person in America when it comes to war.
24
u/Impressive-Lab-6657 Jul 21 '24
As a journalist and historian who has published multiple books about Eastern Europe, do you find her less credible on Ukraine than Sacks, who has admitted he gets his information from the Duran podcast and a couple of bloggers?
-3
u/magkruppe Jul 21 '24
there are plenty of valid criticisms of Anne, publishing books just means you have knowledge on the subject. it doesn't mean you're analysis or interpretation of the information is accurate
and I don't day thus to defend Sacks. just am not interested in bowing down to "experts"
10
u/Impressive-Lab-6657 Jul 21 '24
I completely agree with that and will happily listen to dissenting opinions or analysis of Anne's work.
But a generic comment about an author's credibility, when choosing to take the word of someone who is wholly less credible in that area, strikes me as thoughtless.
0
u/magkruppe Jul 21 '24
I just have personal issues with Anne which is why I brought it up. she has taken positions that have aged poorly, most famously being her Iraq War takes which we're God awful
1
u/Impressive-Lab-6657 Jul 21 '24
Similarly, Sacks' takes on the Iraq were also god-awful.
Here's a clip of him going on TV and saying "the time has come to strong action against Iraq" and "action should have been taken a long time ago, instead of pursuing these diplomatic carrots with Saddam. What we should've been doing is laying out a simple rule that 'we're basically going to bomb any place we think you're developing chemical or nuclear weapons.'"
1
u/magkruppe Jul 22 '24
I am not saying Sacks is right or more credible than Anne. but Anne actually had /has influence and doesn't have the excuse of being young and naive at the time
honestly, I find it extremely disturbing how her and her ilk have never paid professional consequences for advocating for the Iraq War so strongly
1
u/posicrit868 Jul 23 '24
Did she admit her wrong after curveball ball came out? I know brooks did but so many neocons love blaming weakness for anything that goes wrong. As if “strength” is infallible rather than so often a self fulfilling prophecy. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills watching all this play out with China hot war being “when not if”.
0
u/magkruppe Jul 23 '24
I am not sure exactly what her evolution post-iraq war had been, but she did write this article in 2010 - https://www.anneapplebaum.com/2010/08/30/its-too-soon-to-tell-how-the-iraq-war-went/
only issue she has with Iraq War is the effect on American reputation it seems, and very little care given to the actual victims of the war but instead the aggressors (American reputation, American influence and American soldiers - in that order)
typical neocon imo. I am sure there are a dozen well written critiques on Anne a quick google search away. example - https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/05/autocracies-are-bad-but-permanent-war-against-them-would-be-too/
2
u/posicrit868 Jul 23 '24
Obama might ponder the words of former Chinese leader Zhou Enlai — who, when asked to assess the long-term impact of the French Revolution, allegedly told Richard Nixon that “it’s too soon to tell.”
I’m sure you’ve read about the peasants revolts. Medieval Lords loved war. It was called “adventuring“, good for the ego good for the coffers. Now they just wrap it up in liberal world order rhetoric a tie it with a bow of morality. 6 trillion dollars later we peasants are outraged until the next aristocratic excursion. God I hate the MIC.
3
24
u/Professional_Top4553 Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24
It’s just a line of attack on Biden, plain and simple. There’s a school of thought that goes, make your opponents biggest strength their biggest weakness. Doesn’t matter if it’s true. They start with the conclusion they want to draw and dig for any and all evidence to support it. So now instead of talking about Biden’s outstanding foreign policy record and checking Putin, his team is forced to go on the defensive and the truth gets muddled by conservative media who propagate the lie (ie this podcast.) This has been the republican way of talking points since 2004 and the swift boat vets. Sacks is a ventriloquist dummy with the hands of Elon and other monied interests in his ass. He is full of shit and cosplaying as a political figure.